Introduction

This essay is an attempt at interpretation. It does not claim to make any real contribution to the present state of research regarding the three cases under study, namely South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and Israel. It is not the result of a research undertaken in the field. Instead, it is an ambitious attempt at relating basic facts, already known, in such a way as to discern through them a pattern of behaviour that is claimed to be constantly existent in the three experiments which are the subject of this essay.

Underlying this essay is an assumption that there is a pattern of behaviour which is identical in its general lines exhibited by those European settlers who have formed political entities in non-European lands; that this pattern of behaviour is quite recognizable in South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and Israel; and that it is therefore warranted to study those experiments within the framework of this pattern of behaviour. It is the author’s contention that such an approach to the study of settler colonialism is not only essentially valid, but is also useful in comprehending the past and rewarding in attempting to predict the course which events may take in the future.

The pattern of behaviour, claimed to be constantly existent and easily recognizable in the three experiments which are the subject of this essay, could be expressed in ordinary non-technical words as follows : From the first colonial era following the age of modern geographical discoveries, till the age of imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, non-European lands were considered vacant enough to allow Europeans to settle there on a permanent basis; indigenous cultures were considered far too inferior—in comparison to European culture—to earn the Europeans’ respect for the indigenous population. The main concern of those Europeans who desired to settle permanently on lands that were not theirs was to secure a physical—that is geographical—basis for their settlements; thus they were invariably pre-occupied with the question of acquiring land. For their process of settlement to be “legally” secured—and this was important because legal security means not only legitimizing their acquisition of the natives’ lands but also legitimizing their own political institutions—certain colonial, imperial acts were adopted or issued. These acts placed the settlers as a recognized entity in the orbit of colonialist-imperialist traditions. Once established in their new settlements, the settlers, as befits all colonialists, used to deal with the natives inhumanly. As settler colonialism is different from traditional colonialism because the settlers are permanently there, and permanently in contact with the natives, this discriminatory inhuman treatment of the natives has been more systematic, intense and brutal than that which the natives were subjected to by overseas colonialist authorities. Declared espousal of discrimination, on the basis of race, colour or creed, without the need to feel apologetic about it, is the distinguishing feature of settler colonialism. Because the settlers are well-entrenched in the lands they acquire, settler colonialism is not as easy to dismantle as traditional colonialism. The colonialists here were not overseas agents who came to the colonies on duty; they were permanently stationed in the colony, permanently in control of the natives and permanently fortifying their positions of strength. Hence the anti-colonialist revolution after the Second World War did not affect them directly. They were and still are able to hold on stubbornly, and they will continue to hold on as stubbornly for some time to come in the future. This, however, does not mean that they are not being challenged, by the natives, by the countries in the regions in which the settler states are implanted, and by the world at large. Notwithstanding all these challenges, settler colonialism is at present far from being about to give up. The future still seems uncertain, and there is little doubt that it will be marred by fear and blood. What is the future of settler colonialism? of the discriminatory practices of the settlers vis-à-vis the natives? of the native liberation movements? These are some of the most important questions of our present historical era.

Studies of comparative political developments have advanced steadily in recent years. Methods remarkable for their sophistication have been evolved. All sorts of quantitative and qualitative data are currently being employed to test, prove or disprove a “theory”. In the pages that follow there is no effort whatsoever to formulate a neat, tight and coherent theory; and there is no effort to adopt or devise a methodology of the type students of comparative politics feel is necessary. The main reason lying behind this “short-coming” is that settler colonialism has not so far been adequately treated as a subject quite distinct from traditional colonialism. There are too many books written on South Africa, on Southern Rhodesia, on Israel and Algeria; yet there has not been enough attention paid to comparing the static and dynamic mechanisms that have shaped settler colonialism in its recognizable form. Little effort has been made to abstract a “model”, rough as it may be, common to all experiments in settler colonialism.

The pages that follow do not present a meticulous study of the subject. They seek to draw no final, irrevocable and definite conclusions. Rather, the intention is that of sketching a “perspective” through which one can view the development of settler colonialism and its present condition, a thought-provoking perspective that can be elaborated and refined in future studies, an attempt at understanding the three experiments, hitherto treated independently of each other, viewed in a new and essentially valid focus.

One of the motives of writing this essay is a personal bias. It has always seemed to me unjustified for the world to unequivocally condemn the discriminatory practices of the settlers in South Africa, to unequivocally condemn the usurpation of power by the settlers in Southern Rhodesia, and at the same time to be more lenient in respect of the crimes the Zionist settlers have committed and are still committing in Palestine, when the basic lines of all these regimes are identical to one another, when the three regimes are but manifestations of the same colonialism, settler colonialism. There are of course many causes that explain why the world was most indignant at the Smith regime’s declaring its independence in 1965, while it was generally favourable to a similar act by Ben-Gurion less than two decades earlier. Such causes will be adequately dealt with below. The personal bias that was, in part, responsible for my writing this essay has prompted me to present a reasonably coherent interpretation of the similarities between the three settler regimes in South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and Israel. This essay, I hope, will help bring about a better understanding of the so-called Arab-Israeli conflict, in the light of its similarities to what is taking place in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia.

The basic thesis of this essay can explain many phenomena that require special studies. Of these phenomena, one may mention Israel’s reserved attitude towards African independence movements until recently; the equivocal Israeli stand on apartheid at the UN; the flourishing Israeli trade and economic relationships with the settler regimes in Southern Africa; and—most importantly—the Israeli neo-colonialist policy in many African countries—especially those which are not in the vanguard of the battle against the settler regimes. But the most important of these phenomena and, indeed, the most deserving of detailed study are the effects of the structural similarities inherent in the South African, Southern Rhodesian & Israeli regimes on Israel’s African policy on the one hand, and on the Middle Eastern policies of South Africa & Southern Rhodesia on the other.

plus-circle Add Review

comment

Reviews